Should all important decisions that affect the public be decided by direct democracy?

Direct democracy is where people in a country can vote for something that would affect them. We have had an example of this with the recent Brexit problems. At the start of Brexit, Britain held a referendum to decide if we should leave the European Union. Everybody that voted decided if they wanted to stay or leave. The leave side won but now there are talks of holding a second referemdum but some people want to stay with the results of the old vote. If we did that then some people might not be happy with that because of the false information that spread around the media during the first referendum. Also people might have changed their minds about their vote because they might have seen the useful parts of leaving or the useful parts of staying in the E.U. Also most people wouldn't want to hold a referendum every time there is an argument in the country. Other people might say that they do want to hold a second referendum for the subject of Brexit to see if the results are different from the first referendum as the results were almost 50/50. There have been arguments online and in public, there have been riots and protests even though the decision was made by the public.

In conclusion, direct democracy should be used in bigger issues that would affect the whole country but otherwise it shouldn't be used.

Comments (0)

You must be logged in to post a comment